Chl on school grounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

double bogey

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
488
Location
Texas
In Texas, is it a violation to carry concealed on a school playground? When i first took the class and became licensed to carry concealed in the mid 90's, we discussed in class you can carry on the grounds, but not in the buildings. Reading PC 46.03 and 46.035, I am confused whether I can carry or not. I take my granson on walks in the afternoon, and we always go to the school playground. No school related activities going on, but they will be doing football and baseball, not school teams. In my neighborhood I won't go walking without carrying, need to know if we don't stop at the school or not.
 
You are legal so long as no school activity is taking place. 46.03 says:

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

46.035 says:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

There is a very clear distinction between "premises" and "grounds" in 46.03. Premises clearly means a building or portion of a building. The playground is not considered "premises", the playground is considered "grounds" - hence the need for the second and additional phrase: "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted". The presence of the second and additional phrase is what very clearly excludes the playground from the definition of "premises" (in addition to the definition in 46.035).

Although you do say "they well be doing football or baseball". Who is they?
 
The local football and baseball associations use the grounds to practice on. They are not supported by the school district, but are allowed to use the grounds.
 
Should be good to go then, I would say. And besides, concealed is concealed, but it looks like it is legal anyway - as long as your permit is actually from Texas. An out of state permit will not get you out of the Federal 1000' rule, but a permit from the same state the school zone is in does exempt you.
 
An out of state permit will not get you out of the Federal 1000' rule, but a permit from the same state the school zone is in does exempt you.
Click to expand...

Really?

I know better than to doubt you but that's the first time I've heard of that. Hmm. That's no good at all.
 
18 USC 922 (q):

(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
 
NavyLT

Wasn't this provision of USC 18 992 struck down as unconstitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. ( The court of appeals ruled the law unconstitutional, my edit ), It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale
Click to expand...
 
the state recognizes your permit therefore it is the same as local issue .
 
Jelly Jar, and tkaction,

No and no.

Jelly Jar, It was a previous version of 18 USC 922 (q) that was deemed unconstitutional. The current version of 18 USC 922 (q) has not been tried.

tkaction,
You can interpret 18 USC 922 (q) that way if you want to, but the statute does not say "possess a license recognized by the state" or anything like that. The statute says "licensed by". I have a Wyoming driver's license. I am licensed by the state of Wyoming to drive. Washington chooses to recognized my Wyoming driver's license, but I am not licensed to drive by the state of Washington. Washington took no action to issue me a license - Washington did not test me, Washington did not check my record for warrants, Washington did nothing except trust Wyoming to properly license me. The same is true of firearms licenses.

Also notice the follow-on requirement in 18 USC 922(q):
and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

If I simply am in possession of a concealed pistol license that is recognized by a state, and not issued by that state, the state that is merely recognizing my license did nothing to verify that I am qualified under law to receive the license.

Additionally, tkaction, you will notice that the statute refers to "the State". If the statute meant that a license issued by any state would be good, the words "a State" or "any State" would be used.
 
Last edited:
This is from another forum:

The Court ruled that the original Gun Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional because the federal government didn't have jurisdiction. The bill was amended and passed the year after Lopez as the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, based on guidance the Court gave in its ruling. From the Congressional Record:

Quote:
The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

As it exists in its current form, the constitutionalitty of 18 USC 922(q)(2) has not been tested, however it is a chargeable federal offense that is on the books.
 
tkaction,
You can interpret 18 USC 922 (q) that way if you want to, but the statute does not say "possess a license recognized by the state" or anything like that. The statute says "licensed by". I have a Wyoming driver's license. I am licensed by the state of Wyoming to drive. Washington chooses to recognized my Wyoming driver's license, but I am not licensed to drive by the state of Washington. Washington took no action to issue me a license - Washington did not test me, Washington did not check my record for warrants, Washington did nothing except trust Wyoming to properly license me. The same is true of firearms licenses.
Click to expand...

Your analysis of this seems correct, or at least I can't find any holes in it. I always believed it was like tkaction described but I never looked this close before.

May have to make some changes in behavior when I'm in other states.

What about states that don't require licensing for anyone?
 
As it exists in its current form, the constitutionalitty of 18 USC 922(q)(2) has not been tested, however it is a chargeable federal offense that is on the books.
Click to expand...

This is something I've been curious about for quite awhile. Under the Alabama law, I am allowed to carry my firearm anywhere on school property, as long as I am not there with "intent" to cause problems. I.e. I can go pick my nephew up from school, legally armed, if I want to. But this federal restriction makes it illegal to come within 1000ft of a school while armed. So.... which would prevail if some officer caught sight of my firearm while I'm picking my nephew up?
 
Bhamrichard said:
This is something I've been curious about for quite awhile. Under the Alabama law, I am allowed to carry my firearm anywhere on school property, as long as I am not there with "intent" to cause problems. I.e. I can go pick my nephew up from school, legally armed, if I want to. But this federal restriction makes it illegal to come within 1000ft of a school while armed. So.... which would prevail if some officer caught sight of my firearm while I'm picking my nephew up?
Click to expand...

Well you bring up an interesting point. The Alabama statute reads:

13A-11-72. Violent felons, drug addicts or drunkards; possession and ownership restrictions--School grounds; possession or carrying on prohibited.

(a) No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence shall own a pistol or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

(b) No person who is a drug addict or an habitual drunkard shall own a pistol or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

(c) Subject to the exceptions provided by Section 13A-11-74, no person shall knowingly with intent to do bodily harm carry or possess a deadly weapon on the premises of a public school.

(d) Possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to do bodily harm on the premises of a public school in violation of subsection (c) of this section is a Class C felony.

(e) Law enforcement officers are exempt from this section, and persons with pistol permits issued pursuant to Section 13A-11-75, are exempt from the provisions of subsection (c) of this section.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is (e). If you have a pistol permit, you are exempt from (c). So that tells me that if you have a pistol permit, in Alabama, it is not a violation to go to a school with a gun and with the intent to do bodily harm!

I think they screwed up (c). I think what their intent was was to mirror Federal law. You can have a firearm on school grounds with an Alabama permit - that will violate neither Alabama nor Federal law. I think they were trying to prohibit firearms on school grounds by non-permit holders, just like the Federal law does - but for some crazy reason they added "with intent to do bodily harm" and then they exempted permit holders from "with intent to do bodily harm" as well!

When State and Federal laws both exist the more restrictive of the two will apply. However, if they want to prosecute you under a more restrictive Federal law, then the state authorities must forward your charges to Federal authorities and it must be the Federal authorities that prosecute you in a Federal court.
 
Last edited:
TexasRifleman said:
What about states that don't require licensing for anyone?
Click to expand...

Then I would say that within 1000' of a school with a firearm you would be violating the Federal law. I say this because of the requirement in the Federal law of:
and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
Click to expand...

One could argue that Alaska and Vermont by default license persons to carry firearms; a defacto licensure, if you will. However, that defacto license would not meet the requirements of the Federal law because there is no verification conducted by the State to ensure you are qualified under law to receive that license.

But, as I stated above, it would have to be Federal authorities that would charge and prosecute - and for simply carrying a gun, especially concealed, absent any other circumstances, I just don't see that happening.
 
Everybody. First understand that I am not a lawyer but I am not completely uneducated either. So perhaps what I am about to say may or may not have any significance. Also, please note that I am not interested in being the first person to use this argument in a court of law.

Consider Heller vs DC. In that case the SCOTUS ruled that the Federal government cannot totally prohibit the private possession of handguns in the home. But think! Hasn't every handgun someone may have ever purchased have either "moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce"?

If the Federal government can prohibit the possession of handguns simply because at some point their acquisition involved interstate or foreign commerce then the decision in Heller was wrong. Or it can now be argued that Heller prevents the Federal government from prohibiting the possession of handguns for that reason and this new version of 18 USC 922 is just as unconstitutional as the old.

If anyone is willing to be the first test case using this argument I will be willing to contribute some money to your defense.

Take care all.
 
^Thats what I was thinking xD

In NH with a CCW I can carry onto school property and be legally fine?
 
What is interesting is (e). If you have a pistol permit, you are exempt from (c). So that tells me that if you have a pistol permit, in Alabama, it is not a violation to go to a school with a gun and with the intent to do bodily harm!

I think they screwed up (c). I think what their intent was was to mirror Federal law. You can have a firearm on school grounds with an Alabama permit - that will violate neither Alabama nor Federal law. I think they were trying to prohibit firearms on school grounds by non-permit holders, just like the Federal law does - but for some crazy reason they added "with intent to do bodily harm" and then they exempted permit holders from "with intent to do bodily harm" as well!

When State and Federal laws both exist the more restrictive of the two will apply. However, if they want to prosecute you under a more restrictive Federal law, then the state authorities must forward your charges to Federal authorities and it must be the Federal authorities that prosecute you in a Federal court.
Click to expand...

You said that so much better than I did.. Hehe..

So yeah under the Alabama statute, the local po po couldn't arrest me. I assume if they were so inclined, they'd just refer it to the fed guys to prosecute. Though the SCOTUS has already found that restriction unconstitutional once, i wonder how that would go after the Congress re-wrote and re-passed it.

I'm almost sure the state folks intended the statute to be worded something like that, but the intent part should not have been exempted. Alabama is largely rural, very pro-gun, and it's not uncommon to see people picking up kids at the school with long guns in the back winder of their pickem'up trucks :)

But the conflict between the state/fed laws did have me wondering what would happen.

Had to edit: I just realized what your saying, so even with INTENT to do harm, you are still not prohibited from school property under that statute, as you are exempt from it with a pistol permit. Hmm.. Yeah I think that was a screw up, a fairly big one...

All this has me thinking, so under the Alabama statute, and it appears the Federal state, with my pistol permit, I'm not violating either statute if I were to be on school property. My permit exempts me under both, welcome news, but surprising to me.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess
a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable
cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a
license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NavyLT

If you have enough money so that you don't have to ask for donations to help pay for your legal defense should you be charged with possession of a firearm in a school zone contrary to current 18 USC 922 then you don't need any money from me or anyone else.
 
Bhamrichard said:
All this has me thinking, so under the Alabama statute, and it appears the Federal state, with my pistol permit, I'm not violating either statute if I were to be on school property. My permit exempts me under both, welcome news, but surprising to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct, your permit exempts you from both. Apparently, in Alabama, you can even go to a school WITH the intent to do harm and as long as you have a permit, they can't get you for illegal possession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top